Why Is Valve Determined To Ruin Its 'Steam' Platform?

We take a look at the latest crisis to engulf Steam and ask why Valve keeps falling asleep at the wheel.

[LightofDarkness]

It's a real scandal; Steam has become, to (partially) quote Obi-Wan Kenobi, "the most wretched hive of scum and villainy" in all of gaming right now. Yes, even before other notable scumbags like G2A. Steam are adopting the Google/YouTube approach of appearing to be asleep at the wheel, with little to no lines of inquiry available when someone gets cheated or something goes wrong. Unlike YouTube, which has no paying consumers really, Valve has the general gaming public who pay them and their partners for their services, so they can't hide forever. I hope this class action suit either goes ahead or is enough to spur them into action.

This, folks, is why and how unregulated markets do not work.

[ScreenGurus]

Indeed. If EA had done these kind of things with Origin, there'd be fury from gamers.

Valve really have a lot of questions to answer - yet never try to answer them.

[UltimateMaster]

We can't deny Steam's dominance of PC games, or monopoly of them.

[S2Killinit]

Aaannnd it begins... Soon as Microsoft moves into the PC market, the smear campaign of Steam begins.

Isnt Steam's "lax management" of the market the very reason why they can sell games at such low prices? You cant have a cake and eat it too.

I wouldnt be surprised if the class action law suit was brought by up by MS attorneys. I mean what a coincident, no?

MS's window's marketplace cant compete with valves prices if they want to run windows the way they want (and possibly start charging for online multiplayer in the future) so they need to somehow force Valve to change its regulations and be more like the Windows Marketplace.

[-Gespenst-]

The Steam Marketplace is a different thing to the Steam Store. The marketplace is where trading cards are bought and sold. Prices were low before the Marketplace was introduced. Valve can afford to have the Marketplace regulated.

[ScreenGurus]

Steam is far and away the biggest player in the PC space. There's no danger of Microsoft ever catching them up. Even Microsoft's biggest fanboys would concede that Valve's grip on PC gaming is pretty ironclad at this stage.

[uth11]

@ScreenGurus- As long as Steam primarily runs on MS's platform, they run the risk of being undermined by MS. MS has a history of putting stuff into their OSes aimed at harming competitors they feel threatened by.

[LightofDarkness]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present... Fanboy Paranoia.

How you went from my comment to "must be one of them MS fanboys trying to tarnish to good name of my beloved platform (really?)" is no quantum leap. I haven't bought a single thing from the Windows Marketplace and won't if I can help it. I love Steam (I own 350 games FFS) and want to see it become even better, but crap like this shows that Valve are holding it back from continuing to achieve greatness by not even trying to keep an eye on what's going on with it and the direction it's heading in.

It's rare I see paranoid, delusional PC fans in the same vein as the console ones, but I guess there are examples of this on every side (although far less among the PC flock, admittedly).

[S2Killinit]

Ladies and gentlemen i present... Sensetive commentor

How you thought my comment was targeting you is beyond me. I presume you didnt just pull the information you wrote your opinion based on out of thin air correct? Alright, do you know the chain of custody for those sources? No you dont. So how can you argue that my comment is incorrect if you dont have all the facts?

Is it really "fanboy paranoia" if its true? My opinion is just as factually sound as your opinion on how Steam is messing up. we are both relying on information whose sources are for the most part unknown.

You took my comment as a personal attack on your motives, as evidenced by your comment that you dont buy from the Windows Store, as if i was saying that you yourself are a part of MS's PR campaign.

[NarooN]

This "smear campaign" has nothing to do with MS's Win 10 Store, which has already been around for several years. Your last paragraph makes no sense anyway. MS can't do shit to force Valve to make devs do scummy shit like charge for online multiplayer. There will be no paradigm shift. MS tried this years ago with GFWL and it backfired horribly. The current Windows Store is literally GFWL 2.0 in terms of gaming and gamers once again will not fall for it if they try that.

[donthate]

Aaaand it beings.... As soon as MS tries to compete in the market, some people is continuing the smear campaign of MS.

Something completely irrelevant and has absolutely no ties to MS, is suddenly MS fault instead of looking at the actual real complaints including a class action lawsuit! But hey, some people just see everything as MS fault even when they do good. Can't help that!!!

S2Killinit if you didn't intend to respond to LightofDarkness then perhaps you should use the "R-E-P-L-Y" button. It is there to you know, R--E--P--L--Y to people. Just spelling out a little common sense, that is all.

[LightofDarkness]

Because you replied directly to my comment. If your comment was not in response to mine, you should've created a new one that wasn't a direct reply. Looks like someone is back-tracking because they got caught with their ignorance showing.

There are innumerable articles on what Tmartn did on this site and others. I'm not writing an article, I don't have to cite sources for you, and just because you're too lazy to get informed enough to opine meaningfully on the subject doesn't mean it's my duty to ensure you're up to speed. That last comment is one of the most nonsensical ramblings I've ever read. May god have mercy on your soul.

[S2Killinit]

You just sound really angry in general. It WAS a response to your comment, but not an argument against you as a person as you seem to have somehow deduced it was. I responded to your comment because your opinion was so extreme that i felt it deserved a counter argument. I commented under you to provide a different take on the issue. It seems logical to me. Sorry if you didn't want to hear what I had to say. I was hoping to hear your side of the argument, instead your responses seems to be more aimed at attacking me as a person rather than my argument. Its ok though, hope there is no hard feelings.

PS: I didn't ask you to cite any sources. Don't be too lazy to read the comment properly before....commenting. While you are at it, look up the definition of rambling.

[LightofDarkness]

The problem is you had nothing to say but righteous indignation and a fanboyish delusional rant over a perceived slight on something which you hold in high regard. You continue to back track, spinelessly. Another fine addition to Generation Snowflake.

I don't care any more.

[S2Killinit]

You are confusing my being sensible with weakness. I have not backtracked one bit since my position has not changed from my original post.

You call me spineless and yet your rudeness betrays your fearful state of mind.

I am yet to hear anything from you that justifies your claims that my comment was delusional, only meritless name calling with big words to disguise a weak argument.

[callahan09]

Quote from the article: "To highlight the dominance of Steam; 2016’s Rise of the Tomb Raider reportedly sold 98% of its PC copies through Steam compared to a miserable 2% share for Microsoft’s Windows 10 Store. That’s not a dominance, that’s a monopoly."

No, you used the correct word the first time. It's a dominance, not a monopoly. A monopoly would mean that the game is not available on any other marketplace. It IS. It's just that Steam dominates the industry, but doesn't have a monopoly over it. Gamers had a choice, and chose Steam. A monopoly is the absence of that choice.

As far as the gambling thing goes, I must admit, I don't really get it. I haven't used that portion of Steam and none of the articles I've read on it have made much sense to me. Can someone explain it to me in terms you might use to describe it to your luddite grandmother? I'm completely lost as to what the problem is.

And finally, on the Greenlight/Early Access problems, there are risks you take when you fund something like that. You get the early access game as soon as you pay for it. You get what you pay for. Either you like it as it is or you take the gamble that it'll get better. I personally don't EVER pay for Early Access games because I prefer to wait until there is a finished product that's been vetted by the community. I say "let the buyer beware" when it comes to this stuff. But isn't it better that it's a possibility and available at all than to not be available at all? Valve opened up the platform and allows a lot of options to developers, publishers, AND users. For that, they should be given praise, not all this criticism. Consumers need to be smarter, Valve is not doing anything wrong. The facts are all clear and readily available to consumers so they don't get in trouble with the riskier aspects of Steam's platform.

[ScreenGurus]

People win skins in game. Steams backend allows those users to take those skins to a third party website and gamble them using their Steam ID.

The issue is that Valve allows this with 'gambling' - which on Steam also includes a heap of under 18's. In the US gambling online is a huge no-no but Valve in the past has said it doesn't define this as gambling - even though it really is.

Basically Valve has allowed this shady market to pop up with little management from Valve. So it's pretty much open season, with all these under 18 kids being introduced to backdoor gambling.

[starchild]

@callahan09

Very nice comment. I'm happy to see at least one person who understands what a monopoly is. Many people misuse the word.

Anyway, where is room for personal responsibility here? It's like some people truly do want a nanny state and for everything to be regulated. That way they can turn off their brains and imagine they are being taken care of.

[-Gespenst-]

Well the whole Early Access thing is rarely a problem - most games get finished. The real problem is the groups that certain Greenlight submissions affiliate themselves with, which supply steam keys to people who vote the game up and say good things about the game. These are games that people wouldn't vote for ordinarily.

Also, "let the buyer beware" is always too laissez-faire. You can't pin all responsibility on consumers when people go out of their way to mislead and deceive them. Often it's not obvious that you're being mislead or deceived, no matter how not gullible you are. Why should people who actively TRY to deceive and manipulate get let off the hook? They certainly bear at least some of the responsibility for how consumers act.

[Kleptic]

The gambling thing aside, I too don't really understand what is so 'bad' about Steam with greenlight/Early Access. The gambling stuff is just a weirdo side of online gaming that I'll never be able to relate to. I find zero value in fake digital stuff like that, but if it is a problem where people are getting ripped off...sure, something should be done to 'help' these troubled individuals with their addiction...?

But early access? Right on the hub page is states the risk...very clearly...very simply...what you're paying for may NEVER change; says it right in the header. The game's may have development stopped, changed, etc...or may be further developed...it's a case by case basis, and has nothing to do with Valve or Steam.

This boils back down to what most ethical issues do when it comes to consumers and sellers...It's YOUR money, and YOUR responsibility to be an informed consumer. Buying half finished or 'conceptual' software in the hopes of playing it early, and then a full on finished product coming any time soon, all while requiring no additional investment from you...is near sighted at best, and idiotic at worst.

[uth11]

From a legal standpoint, you don't need a full 100% marketshare to be considered a Monopoly, so labelling Steam a monopoly is accurate.

It's about if you have enough power to engage in monopolistic practices, like price gouging and completely locking out competition.

[kneon]

@starchild

From a regulatory perspective you don't need anywhere near 100% market share to be deemed a monopoly. It can be as low as 25% by some definitions.

[donthate]

Kleptic:

I think the main issue with Early Access/Greenlight is that it needs more hand holding by Steam to ensure people at least deliver, or at least hold some of the cash coming in so people don't get outright scammed. This is high risk, low reward scenario and as the purveyor of that Valve has a responsibility to manage it.

I think users do have an expectation that devs are likely to deliver since it is going through Valve. MS seems to be doing a good job of this on their Xbox early access programs.

That doesn't entirely excuse users from due diligence though.

[rainslacker]

@Screen

Your comment doesn't really help me understand why Steam is being instigated for promoting gambling though.

I mean, I understand what went on well enough, and that a 3rd party website allowed gambling through the use of Steam stuff, but it was just a loophole of the Steam feature that allowed it. It wasn't Valve itself sending people there, nor were they actively promoting it.

Anything that has some sort of open trade policy through electronic means could face the same fate, and Valve can't really police the 3rd party websites, because they're 3rd party, nor should they be held responsible for what those sites do.

Is there something more to it that somehow instigates Valve in wrong doing here, or is it just a side effect of the feature allowing open trade?

I'm just having a hard time seeing why the feature itself is bad, and unless Valve actively promoted this gambling, or had a way to control it somehow, I can't see what they did wrong other than provide a feature that I would assume many people would like to have.....based on my experience in WOW and people begging to be able to trade things they win.

[Kleptic]

@donthate: Fair enough. I don't bother with that sort of stuff, so don't really know the differences between how other services handle it. I do think that game development, in and of itself, is a fundamentally kind of deceptive endeavor...Where quality, features, tech, etc. conflict with timing and competition...it's arguably more important to rush a product to market and beat a competing title, than it is to just make the game great...while it's equally important to facking announce the game 2 year in advance to begin with...but my approach is to stay away from the development side of any game until it's actually released and judge it then...I'm just pessimistic about all this in that it seems like we are offered only two extremes; the big publisher games that almost always lack any notion of creativity, risk, or industry changing innovation...or the indie games that go all out, but lack the business people that know how to properly make and sell products/services...asking consumers to be the pot of cash before something comes to light is not the answer, imo anyway...

so either way, if Valve is overly standoff'ish about certain devs/publishers allowing early access to titles that are very clearly 'not going to happen', then something should be done about it...but i'm one that more thinks this kind of industry problem could be avoided on our end from the get go.

[annoyedgamer]

Statists never pass up an opportunity to get their beloved government's claws into another market...

[DragonKnight]

You don't have to be a statist to see that regulation does have benefits. Certain protections are one.

[daynnight365]

How come the downvotes with this? Sounds about right to me

[NecoTehSergal]

Valve created a marketplace, and while opening cases is like Slots, and is addictive to many. Valve isn't responsible for literal Gambling sites coming in and making use of it. I see it as Valve opening a Marketplace for Sales of the user to invest and make it so gamers can grow an interest in Business and understanding market flow, buying and selling, trades. Something most gamers likely before wouldn't care about but it quite an important lesson in the world of marketing, free trades and economy structure. As CSGO has its own Economy and a big question this day and age is currently the EU and UK Market and free trade concerns after Brexit and Leaving - many don't understand Economy though, so if Gamers of the new era understand and grew interest in markets, shares, investments, trading and the sort, maybe it will help us in the future? Let's think of it positively, because the current era is full of people ignorant of how business and economy works and that is very evident.

Others came around, unrelated to Valve, and extended the Business aspect of market/sales and extended the CSGO 'Slots' like crates and made it so you can Gamble a lot more literally on your winnings. Valve really isn't responsible, and it's like how in Diablo 2, there was the jsp forum to trade and sell, a literal market where people could make a profit off of selling rare virtual goods and it too was third-party. Valve really isn't responsible just because people have a gambling problem, they're semi-responsible but the fact that people project their problems and blame Valve for their personal, internalized issues is hilariously Western of you people.

"I have an addiction problem, IT'S VALVES FAULT!"

Or you know, you don't fucking gamble? If you earn a skin, you sell it on the market, you don't gamble, you don't invest, you don't focus so much attention on it, and you make Steam $ by simply selling the Free skins you get. You can simply play CSGO, not care about the skins, play Vanilla-Skins on all weapons like I do, and sell the skins that randomly drop, you may get a random drop that's worth 3 cents - you may get free skins that don't come from crates that are worth $3-$5-$10+ and you won't lose any money at all! Just sell it on the steam marketplace. You'd be PLAYING GAMES FOR FUN! AND MAKING MONEY AT THE SAME TIME! You'd be GIVEN MONEY for playing TF2/CSGO! Why complain about this?! Because Valve is banking on the chance that you have an addiction problem and there'd be more who won't simply sell what they earn and stick with minimal profits? If you play CSGO for 500-1000 hours, you may be given enough money in free skins by Valve to earn back what you paid for to buy the game itself! I'd consider that generous and hilariously opportune for gamers.

But no! Since you have the OPTION to 'Gamble', and you have the OPTION to quit, you have the FREEDOM to choose not to - and you choose to do it, and you unfortunately failed and lost - you don't blame yourself? You blame Valve for letting a 3rd-party website/host, give the option of letting you gamble.

Take my word for it, I'm one who plays with vanilla skins, I've also been one who's made $1500 off of Skins on CSGO Lounge in betting on Tournaments - and I also LOST all that money. HOWEVER, I only have myself to blame because I could've stopped at any time, and chose not to. I prefer having the freedom to gamble or the freedom not to gamble, the freedom of choice. Rather than to whine like a sore fucking loser because I lost money like the rest of you children who cry about how it's the 'companies' fault, it goes back to people RACKING DISCIPRINE!

[rainslacker]

So, I'm a little fuzzy on this whole gambling situation, but Valve aren't the ones that actually allowed the gambling, it was 3rd parties who abused the system and made rigged websites wasn't it?

That's not really Valve's fault, but do believe they should monitor it more, and actively prevent scams. This article said that its been known and going on for over a year now, but I only recall hearing about it in the last week or so. Is this hyperbole by the article, and Valve actually has been enabling this behavior, or is it just that the service that was scamming has been going on for a year?

This article made it out like Steam was the perpetrator of the fraud, and was actively complicit in it(with it's bartender analogy). They may have been aware, and may have not cared, but based on what limited knowledge I have of the situation, it seems people were just stupid enough to give money to untrustworthy sources, and if I had to guess were under the wrong impression that it was safe because it was Valve....you know, how scammers scam, but using the trust of others.

Paid DLC wasn't a bad idea...at least for the business side of things. It's implementation wasn't that great, and they should have known it could lead to stolen content claims, but paid DLC lives when companies take other people's mods, and release them as their own in a re-release, and anybody can charge for their mods, or ask for donations. Steam just gave an official channel to do so to the layman, and it didn't work out because people don't understand that they can't just rip off other people's content and profit from it....so again, seems like it was a 3rd party that caused the problem, not Steam itself....despite the people that didn't like the idea, many modders did.

Greenlight....well...that' ;s about the same as KS. KS doesn't have any accountability either, and its unreasonable for Valve or KS to have to pay back or guarantee any returns on an investment. Maybe some better vetting, but I'll hold that principal to the overall premise, not just Valve.

And lastly, ROTTR being used as a way to show that Steam has a monopoly on the PC gaming market. That's just ridiculous. When ROTTR released, the Windows Store had barely just launched, and the Windows 10 user base on Steam was reported to be less than 20%. On top of that, with all the problems that the Windows 10 store had at the time, why would anyone in their right mind want to buy from there when it locked down the game so much that it wasn't even worth it?

I'd say Steam does have the most dominate position in the PC gaming market, but Ubi and EA both have their own stores, and there are Steam alternatives should someone wish to go through different channels. That isn't a monopoly, that's just Steam being the best known and most utilized gaming service on PC. No one is locked into using it due to being a monopoly. Author should really understand what a monopoly is, or start accusing MS of having a monopoly on the PC OS market.

[qwerty676]

LOL I guarantee you this will have 0 impact on valves position in the pc gaming, there's been other things in the past that people have said "damanged" valve but yet steam continues to grow in popularity.

They have a monopoly, so they really don't need to care about this stuff.

The only thing this scandal does is decrease the value of csgo lotto, less people will be using the service going forward.

[ScreenGurus]

I'm not arguing that it will diminish their hold on PC gaming. But the point is, this isn't the first major self-inflicted hiccup Valve have suffered and probably won't be the last.

They seem determined to make life hard for themselves.

[NotEvenMyFinalForm]

What monopoly do they have? Do you know what a monopoly even is?

[Eldyraen]

An awesome board game

[qwerty676]

sorry meant to say steam

Valve the company isn't a monopoly but their storefront is.

The two other competitors, GoG and Windows Store have very little market share to be of any relevance.

[danielc1991]

the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service....it is a monopoly...with over 90% of the market share it's legally considered a monopoly...or you don't think they CONTROL thr market...monopoly doesnt mean you are the only one in economics

[Death]

As a responsible adult capable of making sound decisions, I have been very happy with Steam. There isn't a better option available which is impressive given the fact there are options if you don't like it. Why is Steam, which has been pretty much praised universally, suddenly under attack?

[ScreenGurus]

What's the point in having a gatekeeper if they don't stop junk like half-baked games, fake projects and gambling industries from taking advantage of users? The whole point of having a walled garden like Steam is so there's standards. So why isn't Valve enforcing those standards?

[pyroxxx]

Think MS money-hatting for bad press,.. to entice some people to actually use their shitty store,.. Think Valve has made some pretty shitty attempts at paid mods,.. but they back-paddled as soon as they heard what consumers want,.. Think they provide pretty consistent service for consumers still and that is all that matters,..
I sometimes get things on GOG nowadays also (cause don't like DRM at all),.. but Steam is still pretty cool

[S2Killinit]

Yup. Isnt it curious that as soon as MS begins to move into the PC market, there is a smear campaign and a class action lawsuit against Steam to get them to change? I mean how is MS going to compete with Steam's pricing? Steam's business model doesnt sit well with MS's vision for the future of PC gaming. Steam has to be changed by force.

[Software_Lover]

This has nothing to do with Microsoft.................... or the actual Steam store for that matter.

[Death]

I don't think I would point the finger at Microsoft as far as an anti-PC gaming smear campaign goes. Who benefits the most to keep gamers away from PC? Microsoft is embracing PC gamers with their renewed support for Windows as a gaming platform. They are also releasing a new console that will share accessories with PC games including third party VR platforms.

I don't believe Sony would orchestrate an anti-PC message, but fans can do some really stupid things. We are seeing some pretty desperate reactions from some fans as Microsoft expands their reach in gaming.

[Reefskye]

I'm sorry, this isn't valves problem, I see idiots believe something on youtube getting scammed then blaming valve for being scammed, it likes putting your bank details in to a website that's quiet clearly not your bank than blaming your bank. Get common sense ONLY USE OFFICIAL SOURCES. If your that gullable then i wonder how many of the same people fell for the scam of paying £1000 to some African king so he can get his money out of the country and give you over a million.

As for fake games on steam and stuff valve does have responsibility its their market place, with this CSGO lotto thing anyone who actually believed it well its your own fault.

[Kaneki-Ken]

Valve already knew about this incident, plus if they wanted they could have shut down the site long time ago since the scammer using the name CSGO without Valve permission. Since Valve owns CSGO, plus their game is involved which the scammer website it's using CSGO for the site name. So pretty much many people is going to blame Valve since Valve pretty much letting the scammer used CSGO name for scammer self gain Gambling, introducing it to the minors and that could lead to a huge suit against Valve. Valve must act now before this controversy gets any bigger, pretty much get sued for a lot of people (a lot players didn't mind gambling but now since it became controversy, players might want to get easy money from Valve). In my opinion, from the beginning gambling from a site that is not own by Valve already sound too sketchy, not even that but just having gambling mention is sketchy as flip.

[kevnb]

People vote with their wallets.

[-Gespenst-]

Poor quality greenlight games make it through because of those groups who reward people with steam keys for voting the game up and saying positive things. Would it really be so costly to Valve if this was prohibited? Surely they can afford regulation in this area?

I also don't really see how regulating the marketplace would be costly.

[Death]

When has Valve ever said they want to control gaming? They offer a single place for gamers to get games, updates, and a more simplified DRM process. Steam has never been about limiting what goes on the store as far as perceived quality goes. It is up to gamers to decide what they think is worth buying.

[BlaqMagiq1]

Valve can't ruin the biggest PC platform when it has more positives than negatives.

[Rooted_Dust]

I'm not really sure how any of this ruins Steam's Platform, but to me it looks more like whiny consumers asking to be protected from their own poor choices.

Everything highlighted in the article is a voluntary transaction. No one is forcing you to support an early access game or bet away 'skins'. If Valve has to financially insure that every user feels validated in buying a game in Early access it would probably go away entirely, and many, very popular, games may have never made it to market.

[TheColbertinator]

Wish there was news on Valve making games again.

[windblowsagain]

I just want HL3. The tech now would be amazing for an Half life game. Either make it or let someone else.

[1nsomniac]

I don't understand the article. Why is Valve to blame for any of this. I've read the article, I understand what their gripes are but what does valve have to do with it...?

[NecoTehSergal]

Ehhh

[Fist4achin]

I don't like valve anymore. They don't play nice...

[Kurdishcurse]

Im a pc gamer, and i can easily see the greedy mess that steam got itself in with greenligjt early access games. If your fine with no quality control, then you are a virus on this industry. The constant flooding of half assed games on steam is almost comically cringe worthy. My pc brethren, stop deluding yourself with this nonsense and turn off your childish bias for a bit...then think clearly. And stop sucking off gaben while your at it.

[Errorist76]

People are stupid, so...?! Every PC gamer will always favor Steam before any Windows Store and soon MS will realise they will need to release their games on Steam as well.

[ninjahunter]

So much dramatic BS. Out of all the nonsense that happens on a day to day basis this is what people take and manipulate into a problem?